Who can resist talking 2016
with news like this floating about?
Come 2016, the former Bain Capital CEO aims to position himself as an anti-poverty warrior.
That would be Mitt Romney, of course. Who else but Mittens could be so outrageous? If this is any indication, the GOP scrum for the nomination is sure to be scrumptious. But the left has its own challenges as Hillary Clinton firms up the campaign team that everyone assumes will steer her to the Democratic nomination.
Voters don’t seem to want a coronation. At least that was the take away from 12 Denver-area residents—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—who participated in a discussion led by Democratic pollster Peter Hart for University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. Dan Balz of the Washington Post noted that the participants in the two-hour discussion have tired of “political dynasties.”
They were dismissive, sometimes harshly, in their assessments of Bush, the former Florida governor. They were also chilly toward former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bush drew comments like, “Joke,” “No, thank you,” and “Clown.” The closest he came to positives were “intriguing” and “interesting." Clinton evoked phrases like, “Spitfire,” “Untrustworthy,” “More of the same,” and “Politician, but gets things done.” Better, but still nothing to brag about.
Who did capture their imagination?
Follow below the fold to find out.
To this group, who spoke in stark terms throughout the evening about the economic challenges of working Americans, [Elizabeth] Warren has struck a chord.
Participants described her as, “Passionate,” “Smart,” “Sincere,” and “Intelligent." Warren, as we have noted repeatedly here,
is not running for president. Her latest pronouncement came this week
in an interview with
Fortune magazine in which she said simply, “No.”
But the responses of these Colorado voters with varied partisan leanings do serve as a guide for someone who is almost certainly running for president: Hillary. Warren is fighting for regular folks, and regardless of which party they favor, Americans seem to know it. It’s that simple. When Fortune asked Warren what advice she would give 2016 candidates, she said:
“They need to speak to America’s families about the economic crisis in this country. It starts with the recognition that Washington works for the rich and powerful and not for America’s families.”
That last part—that Washington isn’t working for American families—is a tough one for Hillary Clinton. She’s been inside the bulwark of the Beltway for most of her adult life. To accept what Warren is saying, preach it, and act on it is almost treasonous.
In fact just last month, Democratic operatives in Washington were already fretting to the Washington Post that a Democratic challenger like Warren might pull Hillary too far to the left, making her unpalatable in the general election.
One danger, several strategists said, is that Clinton might be lured into espousing base-friendly positions that would hurt her in a general election.
Just a refresher for them—the guy who was to the left of Hillary in 2008, not only beat her, he became president. But this is the exact type of conventional wisdom in Washington that progressives have been fighting for nearly a decade, if not more. Liberal policies are, in fact, winners at the polls. Standing up for women, gays, undocumented immigrants, the environment—these issues have undoubtedly helped the Democratic Party over the past eight years even though some in Washington still view them as third-rail politics.
Fortunately, Hillary appears to be assembling a campaign team that’s smarter than that, according to the most recent reports.
In line for campaign manager, Robby Mook, who as Markos noted helped Terry McAuliffe become governor of Virginia in 2013 by championing distinctly Democratic issues. In particular, McAuliffe advanced pro-choice, pro-women policies and won the overall female vote by 9 points, including 67 percent of unmarried women.
Joel Benenson is expected to be Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster. Benenson worked with the Obama campaign in both the 2008 and 2012. But critically in 2012, he was the guy weighing the risks and benefits of Obama coming out for same-sex marriage, ensuring that contraception would be covered by the Affordable Care Act, delaying the decision on Keystone XL, and providing deportation relief to Dreamers. President Obama ultimately made the right decision on all those progressive priorities—quite a turnaround from the way he had governed during his first few years in office.
Finally, John Podesta will reportedly leave his advisory role at the White House to become Hillary’s campaign chair. Podesta, once the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, has been a key adviser to President Obama over the past year in which his administration announced sweeping new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and deportation relief for up to five million more undocumented immigrants.
Clinton’s team is indeed shaping up to be run by people who have either witnessed progressive policies win elections or overseen the implementation of those policies regardless of what conventional wisdom in Washington said. Because as many of us remember all too well prior to 2012, conventional wisdom told Washington lawmakers that evolving on gay marriage or touching immigration and environmental policy or siding with women on their reproductive freedom—those were sure losers for Democrats.
Now if only Hillary Clinton will go the extra step of following Warren’s lead on fighting for average Americans over the interests of Wall Street's bloated financial institutions.
As Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman said on MSNBC this week: “If Hillary were smart, she would be watching everything that Elizabeth Warren is doing and do more of it herself.”